Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe reason they come here and are not booted out, is because the corporate lobby has convinced our leaders that this supply of cheap disposable labor is essential to our economy. If the US were to go into a depression, they would round up the illegals faster than you can say Jack Spratt eats fat.
You're nuts. I'll tell you why there's so much poverty in America -- because every year tens of millions of immigrants and refugees keep coming in. Think about it: If you gave poor people the option of being poor in the United States vs. being poor anywhere else in the world, where do you think they would choose to be poor? My guess is that they ...[text shortened]... in a U.N. Peacekeeper-run brothel. For someone who goes to college, you sure are foolish.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYes, and there isn't an American Indian that would not agree with you; I imagine they think you shouldn't be here also. In fact, I'm certain of it - just ask one.
You're nuts. I'll tell you why there's so much poverty in America -- because every year tens of millions of immigrants and refugees keep coming in....
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by whodeyI have made many of those points before, some in this thread. I advocate switching to more secure forms of energy, and using technology to both create wealth and reduce CO2 emissions. The fact that oil is about to start running out is one of the more immediately compelling/effective ones. I have also mentioned in a recent post that nuclear fission might be part of the alternative, but that we don't have enough nuclear fuel to supply anywhere near enough power, until we get fusion working (40~50yrs ish). I don't believe in over taxation (economically I tend to lean towards the conservative side (that would be republican in the USA), I think that you provide good legislation/regulation and then tax as little as possible, to fund the essential services government is supposed to provide, (like healthcare, the military, and making sure people have enough power/water/food)
You libs just don't get it do ya? It is like trying to prove that smoking causes cancer. You just CAN'T seem to be able to do it. Sure, you can use correlations and logic and medical knowledge to dissuade people but those who want to smoke will simply continue to do so despite what everyone knows about it but can't prove about it. Then couple this with th ...[text shortened]... ances they will find one, let alone implement it on a mass scale within the next 10 years?
Also, why does promoting a 'green agenda' (and that doesn't necessarily mean what you might think it does) make one a liberal, and even if it does, what makes you think that all liberals think/act alike or believe in the same things?
I was simply pointing out that the statement made was incorrect, and why. This doesn't limit my arguments or say anything about me other than the fact I saw an incorrect scientific statement and sought to correct it.
You can prove that smoking causes cancer BTW (just not any particular cancer case), one of the many reasons I don't smoke, the difference between the examples is it doesn't really bother me if others want to kill themselves by smoking, but other peoples CO2 emissions effect me.
Originally posted by duecerThat's only half the story -- the other half is that the Democrats hope these new "Americans" will vote Democrat once they get here. Consequently, voter fraud is becoming a real problem in our country.
The reason they come here and are not booted out, is because the corporate lobby has convinced our leaders that this supply of cheap disposable labor is essential to our economy. If the US were to go into a depression, they would round up the illegals faster than you can say Jack Spratt eats fat.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterReagan's cuts to domestic infrastructure spending also played a significant role in increasing poverty and homelessness in the US.
You're nuts. I'll tell you why there's so much poverty in America -- because every year tens of millions of immigrants and refugees keep coming in. Think about it: If you gave poor people the option of being poor in the United States vs. being poor anywhere else in the world, where do you think they would choose to be poor? My guess is that they ...[text shortened]... in a U.N. Peacekeeper-run brothel. For someone who goes to college, you sure are foolish.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell according to Gore, we don't have 40-50 years to make a change. So if you believe his data, we are going to destroy this planet because we if endorse your plan and wait around for nuclear fusion to become viable it will be too late?
I have also mentioned in a recent post that nuclear fission might be part of the alternative, but that we don't have enough nuclear fuel to supply anywhere near enough power, until we get fusion working (40~50yrs ish).
As far as your ascertion that nuclear fission is not viable to meet our needs, where do you get your facts? For example, McCain has said that he is willing to invest in nuclear power because we need change NOW. It just gets me to wondering who Gore will vote for. Will he vote for Obama who is "agnostic" regarding nuclear power or McCain who seems to be endorsing it? Don't get me wrong, I have no agenda praising any particular alternative energy, rather, my only agenda is to end our dependence on oil ASAP and from what I have heard thus far McCain is the man for the job. In fact, if nuclear fusion were viable I would be championing that over fission but the fact remains that we don't have the technology currently and it would appear, at least according to Al Gore, that we don't have the time.
Having said that, there will be a lag period for developing other alternative fuels whether it be nuclear or otherwise. During this time we can drill right here in our back yard and at least reduce our dependency on the "Messopatamian" region in the interim. I only hear McCain endorsing this as well.